This project studies how reflecting on what is morally right affects people's fairness judgments, when people hold different personal ideals about fairness (for example, equality versus efficiency).
A laboratory experiment shows that prompting people to state their moral views behind a veil of ignorance makes their choices less selfish but more polarized, reflecting opposing moral ideals. Knowing how peers behave does not mitigate this polarization.
Does encouraging people to reflect on what is morally right make them behave more fairly and more similarly to one another, or does it instead amplify differences in what they consider fair? Using a simple model of identity utility, we predict that if people hold different personal fairness ideals - for instance, favoring equality versus favoring efficiency - prompting moral reflection should make choices less selfish, but also more polarized across these ideals.
A laboratory experiment tests this prediction by letting participants pursue different fairness ideals, while exogenously varying whether they are prompted to state their moral views behind a veil of ignorance, and whether they are informed about their peers' choices.
Moral reflection indeed polarizes fairness judgments along the lines of people's underlying ideals, even as it reduces selfish behavior. The desire to conform with peers' behavior does not mitigate this polarization.
Publication in peer-reviewed journal
Replication package
